Death Penalty

[Jim]

If competent and guilty, Kevin Underwood deserves death.

[Tetrahedrite]

If that's what makes you feel good, then yes, the state should murder him.

[Jim]

If that's what makes you feel good, then yes, the state should murder him.

 

Why use the inapt term "murder" to justify letting this guy continue to breath?

 

Yes, I will feel better when this "man" is no longer breathing. Do you want to rehabilitate him and let him loose some day?

 

Here's a better reason for the death penalty: He deserves to to die.

 

Also, I like the idea that there are some lines you do not cross. If you do, you forfeit all rights, including the right to continue.

 

I would reserve this justice for cases with iron clad proof where the circumstances are especially heinous. This looks like such a case.

[Pangloss]

So the justice system is for retribution?

[Jim]

So the justice system is for retribution?

 

Partly, yes IMO. Mind you, I was not entirely applauded when I made this argument in my criminal law class.

[Pangloss]

Gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that one, but I respect your opinion on it.

[Bettina]

If he is the one who did it then I want him to die as soon as possible. I wouldn't care if he had a tough life or was beaten himself. I just want him to die and I want the people who loved her to help in his execution.

 

Then I want him cremated, his ashes placed in a one foot diameter lead ball and dropped into the Marianas trench.

 

Bee

[Sisyphus]

I don't see what getting all bloodthirsty is going to solve. If he's a human, then you're an irrational murderer. If he's not, then hating him makes no more sense than hating an animal. The law exists for the benefit of society, which I don't think includes revenge. What it does include is removing the person from society because he is a danger, attempting to rehabilitate him, and inflicting harm ONLY for the purpose of a deterrent, as knowledge of terrible consequences can prevent crime. This last one would be the only justification for capital punishment, NOT emotional gratification. There's a reason juries don't consist of victims' families.

[Jim]

I don't see what getting all bloodthirsty is going to solve.

 

I don't want him tortured. I just want him to be no more.

 

If he's a human, then you're an irrational murderer.

 

The state is not "murdering" him, it is killing him for his crimes. He is human and if he remains capable of distinguishing right and wrong, it only makes the offense all the more evil.

 

If he's not, then hating him makes no more sense than hating an animal.

 

I agree that if he is legally insane, he should not be convicted.

 

The law exists for the benefit of society, which I don't think includes revenge.

 

The law partially exists for this purpose but, also, to do what is right. What it does include is removing the person from society because he is a danger, attempting to rehabilitate him, and inflicting harm ONLY for the purpose of a deterrent, as knowledge of terrible consequences can prevent crime. This last one would be the only justification for capital punishment, NOT emotional gratification. There's a reason juries don't consist of victims' families.

 

There is also a reason why juries are given victim impact statements. At some point, societies interests in due process having been served, we have to look at what actually happened to real people and the impact it had on them. Part of the contract is that individuals relinquish their right of justice to the state and the state, in my minority opinion, has a moral obligation to do justice.

 

I suppose it comes back to the question on the other board: What are we? If we are so many chemicals or if we act in predetermined ways, then I suppose we should all be content to merely fix the broken human machine and wish him well as he enjoys the rest of his life. There would be no argument for life imprisonment under this view. The instant the man is rehabilitated with the deterence society needs to protect himself, we let him go.

[bascule]

I remain unilaterally opposed to the death penalty, primarily due to the (scientifically-derived) concept of potential falsifiability. I believe that, no matter how much of an open and shut case a particular murder/rape/what have you may be, that the charges should always be considered potentially falsifiable, and therefore do not provide a sufficient justification for taking life.

 

Penn and Teller did an awesome Bullshit on the death penalty... more innocent people have been put to death in the last 30 years than have been killed by inmates who received a deferred life sentence or for whom the death penalty was considered as a potential punishment. There is no correlation between the implementation of the death penalty and the murder rate: it does not act as a deterrent. And finally, it costs substantially more to execute an inmate (due to legal fees) than it does to keep them in jail for life.

 

So what's the point? I think it's to feed some carnal desire humans have for brutal revenge upon the wicked.

 

The death penalty is bullshit.

[JohnB]

Bloody hell. Bascule and I in total agreement. Mark it on the calendar.

 

Some of us have been over this ground before so I'll be blunt. If some of you want to sate your thirst for blood and revenge, go right ahead. But don't call it "Justice" and don't expect others to agree with you or to see it for anything other than what it is, Legalised Ritualistic Murder.

[Jim]

Some of us have been over this ground before so I'll be blunt. If some of you want to sate your thirst for blood and revenge, go right ahead.

 

Does it make life easier to impute motives to those with whom you disagree?

 

But don't call it "Justice" and don't expect others to agree with you or to see it for anything other than what it is, Legalised Ritualistic Murder.

 

1. Legalized... yes.

 

2. Ritualistic... well, I suppose when they inject people they have procedures but it seems a stretch to call them rituals.

 

3. Murder.... ergh, no. See #1.

 

Argumentation by labels is a funny thing. I say the man is getting what he deserves. That immediately is switched to labels like "revenge" or "retribution" or "murder" without ever delving into substance.

[Jim]

I remain unilaterally opposed to the death penalty' date=' primarily due to the (scientifically-derived) concept of potential falsifiability. I believe that, no matter how much of an open and shut case a particular murder/rape/what have you may be, that the charges should always be considered potentially falsifiable, and therefore do not provide a sufficient justification for taking life.

 

Penn and Teller did an awesome Bullshit on the death penalty... more innocent people have been put to death in the last 30 years than have been killed by inmates who received a deferred life sentence or for whom the death penalty was considered as a potential punishment. There is no correlation between the implementation of the death penalty and the murder rate: it does not act as a deterrent. And finally, it costs substantially more to execute an inmate (due to legal fees) than it does to keep them in jail for life.

 

So what's the point? I think it's to feed some carnal desire humans have for brutal revenge upon the wicked.

 

The death penalty is bullshit.[/quote']

 

Oh, well, Penn and Teller, I stand corrected.

 

Funny how no one wants to focus on what this man did and what this girl suffered. In this antiseptic talk of rehabilitation and deterrence, where exactly does what happened come into play?

 

Here's another funny thing. How can you justify life imprisonment? The man may well be rehabilitated 30 years from now and does it really increase deterrence to hold him for 40?

 

Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in calling bullshit on the death penalty when you are imposing a "savage" punishment yourself? Is life worth more than freedom?

 

Let's be honest: Inflexible lifetime incarceration is imposed as much for what the man deserves as it is for rehab or deterrence.

[Royston]

I think (legal costs aside) that it's probably more beneficial to keep somebody incarcerated because (not meaning to sound cold) but it's an opportunity to study the motives of such behaviour...if the person is dead, they're not much good to anyone.

 

If we have living examples of people that have commited terrible acts, then surely it's better to get some benefit out of a horrible situation, and learn from said person and gain some psychological insight. This could benefit others in the future.

 

Psychology is still very much an open book, so to dictate who is sane and who is insane, is debateable.

[Jim]

I think (legal costs aside) that it's probably more beneficial to keep somebody incarcerated because (not meaning to sound cold) but it's an opportunity to study the motives of such behaviour...if the person is dead' date=' they're not much good to anyone.

 

If we have living examples of people that have commited terrible acts, then surely it's better to get some benefit out of a horrible situation, and learn from said person and gain some psychological insight. This could benefit others in the future.

 

Psychology is still very much an open book, so to dictate who is sane and who is insane, is debateable.[/quote']

 

I am tepidly prochoice. Human life, I believe, is rare and precious but its protection is not an absolute. It is far more cruel to lock a human being in a dungeon for lifetime to abuse or be abused. I am fairly lenient in most sentencing issues and am repulsed by legislators who try to one up each other to max jail time. Electronic monitoring should be used where the criminal is not a danger to society.

 

Death should be reserved only for cases where the proof is ironclad although I'm not quite sure how I would phrase that standard of proof (guilt beyond all but the most improbable of doubt?) and where the murder was especially heinnous. I would not impose the death penalty where I have any real doubt or for the typical crime of passion. But where a guy posts on a bulletin board his desire to eat human flesh and then stalks a precious ten year old girl, yes, I do not want him to continue. Take the life as humanely as possible but end it now.

 

I do not think having him in prison for life, perhaps well past the point where he is a danger, serves any purpose, let alone some pretense of higher morality.

[Phi for All]

The death penalty is just plain wrong. What this human being did to another human being is absolutely terrible, and we would just be compounding what he did by killing him. You can call him a monster to make yourself feel better about killing him but ultimately it's still shifting responsibility for whatever our society did or did not do to create someone so sick.

 

Perhaps we need psychological screening to catch this type of person earlier. It will be costly in the beginning but what if it eventually made a good portion of the penal system unnecessary?

 

The DP is not a deterrant. It just teaches us that it's OK to solve your problems by killing someone.

[Jim]

The death penalty is just plain wrong.

 

Hard to argue with but let's go on...

 

What this human being did to another human being is absolutely terrible, and we would just be compounding what he did by killing him.

 

I see a conclusion but no argument. How can you compare the assessment of guilt after due process is afforded to stalking and then destroying a ten year old girl? Underwood killed an innocent. The state should kill Underwood only if he is guilty. Apples and oranges my friend.

 

You can call him a monster to make yourself feel better about killing him...

 

No, I call him a monster because that is what he is.

 

...but ultimately it's still shifting responsibility for whatever our society did or did not do to create someone so sick.

 

Bingo! This is the philosophical underpinning of this argument. Societal vrs individual responsibility. If Underwood is legally sane, i.e. able to determine right from wrong, then he is personally responsible for his crime. Not me. Not you. Not his mother. Not the failure of some republican administration to fund head start. Him. Why is it unfair for him to pay with his life?

 

Perhaps we need psychological screening to catch this type of person earlier. It will be costly in the beginning but what if it eventually made a good portion of the penal system unnecessary?

 

That's actually kind of scary. Determine the genetic or psych profile of a killer and then "catch" him before the crime is done? A very Minority Reportish kind of idea....

 

The DP is not a deterrent.

 

Does life imprisonment without parole deter more than a ten year sentence?

 

It just teaches us that it's OK to solve your problems by killing someone.

 

I sure didn't learn that lesson. What I would learn is that a ten year old's life is precious and that if a "man" extinguishes that life while knowing right from wrong, he pays.

[YT2095]

well, it would be hard to argue that ANYONE that can do this sort of thing is actualy Sane.

[Sisyphus]

The question here can really be rephrased as, "What is the purpose of law?"

 

I say it's to benefit society, by protecting us from those would do us harm, encouraging beneficial behavior, and making it not worth it for an individual to commit acts that harm society.

 

You might ask the question, then, "Why not just use the death penalty for all offenses?" Why not use torture, for that matter? I mean, nobody would speed, right? Why are punishments prescribed in proportion to the seriousness of the offense?

 

You seem to think it's because the offender "deserves" more punishment for more serious offenses. But what a person deserves is inevitably an emotional judgement, and has nothing to do with what is actually good for society.

 

However, such a gradation in punishment can also be explained rationally. If we tortured and executed everyone who got a speeding ticket, we would be removing otherwise beneficial and useful members of society. The point is that deterrance must be balanced with the need to improve the behavior of those who are not perfect (i.e., all of us) to act more in accordance with law. Destroying someone's life is usually not worth the deterrant, and prisoners are a drain on society. Hence, some speeding is an acceptable price to pay for not wiping out half the population. This is why repeat offenses carry more punishment, because the original deterrant proved ineffective in that particular person. With murder, the damage to society is very great, and the punishment is necessarily much greater. It is absolutely necessary that people not fear for their lives from the intentions of one another in order for a society to function, and so we are willing to pay a very high price to ensure that.

[Jim]

well, it would be hard to argue that ANYONE that can do this sort of thing is actualy Sane.

 

While the definition of legal "insanity" varies with the jurisdiction, you can be legally sane while suffering a mental illness. The basic question asked is if the perpetrator is capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

[Miss Perfect]

Well, sounds like it's easier to remove society's problems 1 by 1 than trying to find and fight the sourse of problems...

 

well, it would be hard to argue that ANYONE that can do this sort of thing is actualy Sane.

And we keep insane people in nuthouse not graveyard!

[YT2095]

erm, lil` Miss, did you actualy READ my comment, I didn`t condone killing, my point was that of the Deffinition of Sanity.

[Jim]

The question here can really be rephrased as' date=' "What is the purpose of law?"

 

I say it's to benefit society, by protecting us from those would do us harm, encouraging beneficial behavior, and making it not worth it for an individual to commit acts that harm society.[/quote']

 

Generally, we are nation of laws (criminal, antitrust, contract, election, etc etc) and not men because the converse arrangement is a nightmare. For criminal laws, the primary purpose is to restrain government by ensuring that the state cannot imprison without due process and without an indictment and conviction under preexisting, not post hoc, laws.

 

Individuals agree to relinquish their private right of justice when aggrieved to the government. If Mike Dukakis' wife is raped, he knows that as much as he would like to go rambo on the perp, the government will pursue those claims vigorously under the law. Ultimately, criminal law tries to do what is fair when assigning culpability.

 

The linchpin of this entire system is that bad guys who hurt people get punished. If this did not happen, how could we ask Jamie Rose Bolin's family not to get a gun and take care of Underwood? Without the assurance that punishment will be applied, our society would spin apart. Secondarily, we want to try to rehab criminals who will return to the street and we want to deter. However, the primary goal is to safeguard the trust that has been given to the government by individuals who agree not to right wrongs individually.

 

You might ask the question, then, "Why not just use the death penalty for all offenses?" Why not use torture, for that matter? I mean, nobody would speed, right? Why are punishments prescribed in proportion to the seriousness of the offense? You seem to think it's because the offender "deserves" more punishment for more serious offenses. But what a person deserves is inevitably an emotional judgment, and has nothing to do with what is actually good for society.

 

First, as Dukakis learned, there is a place for human emotion in some decisions. Why did Dukakis' response hurt him so much? Because instinctively we all know that the state is acting on behalf of the individual who needs justice and wants punishment. Who would trust an automaton to lead the country?

 

Second, the question I actually asked was how can you justify an inflexible life sentence unde this view? That seems more cruel than death if we are not to use emotions in any way.

 

Third, there should be a gradiation in punishment for a very simple reason - it's fair to fit the punishment to the crime.

[Miss Perfect]

erm, lil` Miss, did you actualy READ my comment, I didn`t condone killing, my point was that of the Deffinition of Sanity.

Everyone(not SFN's mebers) knows that I never read people's comments properly!

(Anyway I wasn't commenting on your post. I just wanted to say that according to me this person can't be sane . Therefore we should keep him in a nouthouse...)

But who am I to decide who's sane and who's not?

[Sisyphus]

Jim, your argument has become:

 

Criminals must be punished in order to satisfy those who would seek revenge, thus preventing vigilante justice.

 

Is that more or less what you're saying?